MARGE TÄKS Engineering students’ experiences of entrepreneurship education

(1)

MARGE TÄKSEngineering students’ experiences of entrepreneurship education

Tartu 2015

DISSERTATIONES PEDAGOGICAE

UNIVERSITATIS TARTUENSIS

18

MARGE TÄKS

Engineering students’ experiences of entrepreneurship education

A qualitative approach

(2)

DISSERTATIONES PEDAGOGICAE UNIVERSITATIS TARTUENSIS 18

(3)

DISSERTATIONES PEDAGOGICAE UNIVERSITATIS TARTUENSIS 18

MARGE TÄKS

Engineering students’ experiences of entrepreneurship education

A qualitative approach

(4)

Institute of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences and Education, University of Tartu, Estonia

Dissertation is accepted for the commencement of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (in Pedagogy) on February 26, 2015 by the Doctoral Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Education, University of Tartu, Estonia Supervisors: Hasso Kukemelk, PhD, Associate Professor,

University of Tartu, Estonia Päivi Tynjälä, PhD, Professor, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Opponent: Paula Kyrö, PhD, Former Professor, Aalto University, Finland

Commencement: May 20, 2015, at 14.00

ISSN 1406-1317

ISBN 978-9949-32-791-1 (print) ISBN 978-9949-32-792-8 (pdf) Copyright: Marge Täks, 2015

The publication of this dissertation is granted by the European Union Social Fund.

(5)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Integrative pedagogy model. Page 18

Figure 2. Focus of phenomenographic research. Page 25

Figure 3. Focus of phenomenographic research modified in light of the current study. Page 25

Figure 4. Waves of emotions. Page 43

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Philosophy, method and outcome of phenomenography. Page 24 Table 2. Overview of the samples of the semi-structured group interviews and

the individual in-depth interviews (Articles I and II). Page 30 Table 3. Overview of three different perspectives that were studied to answer

the overarching research questions. Page 36

Table 4. Categories of engineering students’ ways of experiencing studying entrepreneurship as part of their study programme (Täks et al., 2014).

Page 38

Table 5. Engineering students’ conceptions of learning entrepreneurship as an integrated part of their study programme (Täks et al., submitted).

Page 40

Table 6. Comparison of the conceptions of learning presented in three studies.

Page 46

Table 7. Contributions of this study to engineering education and

entrepreneurship education as well as to higher education. Page 57

(8)

Contributions by the author:

Article I: Designing the study, formulating the research questions, carrying out the data collection and analysis, and writing the paper as the main author.

Article II: Designing the study, formulating the research questions, carrying out the data collection and analysis, and writing the paper as the main author.

Article III: Participating in the creation of the study design, determining the instruments for the study, carrying out the Estonian data collection and participating in the analytical process, participating in the formulation of the research questions, leading the writing process in shared authorship.

LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS

I Täks, M., Tynjälä, P., Toding, M., Kukemelk, H., & Venesaar, U. (2014).

Engineering students’ experiences of studying entrepreneurship. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4), 573–598. doi: 10.1002/jee.20056

II Täks, M., Tynjälä, P., & Kukemelk, H. (2015). Engineering students’ conceptions of entrepreneurial learning as part of their education. European Journal of Engineering Education, (Published online on February 14^th), doi: 10.1080/03043797.2015.1012708

III Arpiainen, R.-L., Lackéus, M., Täks, M., & Tynjälä, P. (2013). The sources and dynamics of emotions in entrepreneurship education learning process.

Trames: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 17(4), 331–346.

doi: 10.3176/tr.2013.4.02

(9)

1. INTRODUCTION

Rapidly changing world and technological developments place high demands on future employees, who are expected to possess diverse generic skills and to be innovative. Engineers are no exception. Labour markets are not as stable as a decade ago and engineers within companies are expected to be entrepreneurially minded as well as to create new jobs. New generations of engineers need deep knowledge in their field as well as the ability to work and communicate across disciplinary boundaries in solving complex problems. Meeting the social, economic and environmental challenges of professional engineering activities means that engineers also have to understand how the markets work and what it means to create value for the customer, while adhering to ethical standards (Duval-Couetil, Reed-Roads, & Haghighi, 2012). Thus, developing the capa- bility to take effective and appropriate actions in unfamiliar and constantly changing circumstances in the workplace is needed (Barnett, 2004; National Academy of Engineering, 2005; Stephenson, 1992; Tynjälä & Gijbels, 2012).

The development of this kind of professional expertise in a specific domain requires acquiring deep knowledge of key concepts, the ability to apply this knowledge to solve complex and novel problems, the ability to critically reflect on one’s own activities, and, finally, to acquire self-regulative and lifelong learning skills (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009; Rugacia, Felder, Woods, & Stice, 2000; Tynjälä, 2008; Tynjälä & Gijbels, 2012; etc.). Long-term engagement, deliberate practice and working in one’s chosen field are prerequisites for developing this kind of expertise (Boshuizen, 2009; Eraut, 2004; Ericsson, 2006;

Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993; Ericsson, Prietula, & Cokely, 2007;

Litzinger, Lattuca, Hadgraft, & Newtetter, 2011; National Academy of Engin- eering, 2005; Rugacia et al., 2000; Tynjälä & Gijbels, 2012). Before solving problems, one has to learn to also see the opportunities in problems, i.e., recognise problems as an opportunity for innovation, in order to develop solutions within an increasingly diverse community (Brown, 2000; Byers, Dorf,

& Nelson, 2010; Jamieson, & Lohmann, 2009; National Academy of Engin- eering, 2005; Rae, 2003; Rugacia et al., 2000). In addition, excellent communication and team-working skills in collaboration across disciplines is necessary to connect ideas from different interdisciplinary systems (Creed, Suuberg, &

Crawford, 2002; Litzinger et al., 2011; National Academy of Engineering, 2005; Rugacia et al., 2000; Sawyer, 2007; Tynjälä & Gijbels, 2012).

Since entrepreneurship education addresses many of the skills so crucial to future engineers, it is often seen as an opportunity within engineering education.

Many reports suggest that in order to overcome the aforementioned challenges, integrating entrepreneurship education into scientific and technical studies and within technical institutions is necessary (European Commission, 2006, 2008;

Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009; National Agency of Engineering, 2005; European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), 2011; and others). According to the scholars in the field of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial learning

(10)

should be experiential in nature, active and focus on opportunity pursuit, opportunity evaluation and commercialising ideas (Cope, 2003; Fayolle &

Gailly, 2008; Gibb, 2002, 2008; Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Lans, Oganisjana, Täks, & Popov, 2013; Porter, 1994; Rae, 2003). In addition, it should provide valuable learning experiences for learners to develop their imagination, creativity and innovativeness, as well as their risk-taking/management and networking skills (Cope, 2003; Cooper, Bottomley, & Gordon, 2004; Gibb, 2002, 2008; Jones & English, 2004; Kyrö, 2005; etc.) and their ability to be effective (European Commission, 2008; National Agency of Engineering, 2005;

Sawyer, 2007). It is seen as just as important to also learn to become resilient to failures and to possess determination for achieving set aims (Shepherd, 2004).

Even though it is widely recognised and accepted that entrepreneurship education can be seen as an opportunity for modernising education and for meeting future labour market demands, research work on the factors that affect the underlying learning processes remains rare (Lans et al., 2013). Finding research that highlights the application of entrepreneurship education within engineering education is even more challenging. Also, the extent, the nature and outcomes of provided entrepreneurship programmes have not been thoroughly explored in scientific literature (Duval-Couetil et al., 2012; Duval-Couetil, 2013). Standish-Kuon and Rice (2002) complement this argument, adding that a clear understanding of what entrepreneurship education within the engineering context should be is needed and should be supported by scientific evidence. For example, in Estonia no scientific evidence of this kind can be identified. In addition, the research conducted and presented in existing literature seems to mostly relate to elective entrepreneurship courses and programmes, whereas studies on compulsory entrepreneurship courses are very scarce.

1.1. The latest developments and challenges in engineering education

With the aim to enhance student learning, engineering education has been developed by taking into account scientific advancements and technological developments. In addition, Litzinger and colleagues (2011) highlight the pedagogical changes being made, such as the application of team-based and

“authentic” project-driven activities, to deepen students’ deep conceptual knowledge and professional expertise. Even though the changes that have occurred have been positive, many reports on engineering education state that the initiatives undertaken still do not adequately prepare students to meet the challenges of the 21^st century’s labour market. Several research reports highlight that engineering curricula are tightly sequenced, highly technical, based on the traditional models, imbalanced when it comes to theory and practice, and do not sufficiently take into account how people learn (Creed et al., 2002; Jamieson

& Lohmann, 2009; Kriewall & Mekemson, 2010). Multi-cultural experiences

(11)

and cross-disciplinary educational experiences are rarely exercised (Jamieson &

Lohmann, 2009; Creed et al., 2009). Most of this also seems to be the case in Estonia. In the United States, reports by both the American Society for Engin- eering Education (ASEE) (2009) and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) (2005) call for “re-engineering the engineering education” in order to address the demands faced by future engineers. Kriewall and Mekemson (2010) highlight the importance of entrepreneurially minded engineers who should be key influencers in creating new products. In Europe, the European Commission Expert Group’s (EG) Final Report 2008 to the European Commission (EC) and the Annual Report 2011 of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) drew special attention to the challenges related to developing technical and science curricula and to the need for universities to increase their teaching of entrepreneurship and become more entrepreneurial.

1.2. Entrepreneurship education in technical and engineering studies

The Communication 2006 from the European Commission (EC) to the Council and the Expert Group’s (EG) Final Report 2008 to the European Commission (EC) highlight that entrepreneurship is not yet adequately integrated in higher education curricula. The general situation regarding entrepreneurship education is considered weak by the experts, especially in non-business and technical fields of study where mainly accounting and innovation courses are offered to the students (European Commission, 2008). In addition, the quality of those courses seems to be questionable, since academic staff do not have sufficient experience and qualifications (EC, 2008, p. 16; EC, 2011). The same report suggests that higher education institutions (HEI) should develop entrepreneurial mindsets and graduates who are creative and flexible problem solvers able to cope with uncertainties (EC, 2008, p. 9). Further, the report suggests that policy makers should initiate the legislation, accreditation and award systems for universities, and that at the HEI-level, strategies and action plans, incentive systems, and the awarding of academic credits should be implemented. This also means developing and implementing new learning and teaching methods, developing and delivering new innovative study programmes, organising continuing educational programmes and activities with and within companies, applying entrepreneurship education to any discipline, conducting field-related activities that are embedded in curricula, and developing students, researchers, teachers and company staff, as well as other initiatives (European Commission, 2008, p. 9).

Also, general business and economic studies should not be confused with entrepreneurship education, since the goals of the former and latter differ: while business studies emphasise economic theories, entrepreneurship education promotes creativity, innovation and self-employment (EC, 2008, p. 10).

(12)

As mentioned before, Estonian engineering education seems to face the same situation as the United States and the EU countries when it comes to curricular challenges. For example, curricula seem to be rather technical, concentrating on teaching concepts and theories, not necessarily on putting learned concepts and theories into practice. Also, in Estonia, there are few elective courses to choose from and the learning environments provided offer mainly traditional learning.

For example, a survey that is conducted among higher education alumni of the University of Tartu (UT) (2011) in Estonia brought out the shortage of practice- based learning. The lowest scores related to the development of skills in leadership, self-establishment, argumentation and negotiation, and to foreign language proficiency (UT, 2011). Team-working skills, although a category that received higher scores than the aforementioned skill areas, also did not meet labour market needs in the opinion of most alumni. The research team concluded that universities contribute little to the development of skill sets that prepare students for their future work life. In a recent Estonian study by Vadi, Reino and Aidla (2014) on students and teachers, regarding their perceived roles and expectations of each other, half of the participants expressed the importance of emotional connectedness between the students and the teacher. The participating students also felt that teachers should raise students’ interest in their subject, consider learners’ personal progress, highlight learners’ potential, and treat each student as equal. In the students’ view, teachers should activate them during lectures, promote/initiate discussions in order to make them think critically, direct them to analyse discussed issues, and provide a supportive and positive learning environment.

Jamieson and Lohmann (2009) support these statements by claiming that experiential learning experiences in engineering education should not be underestimated, and suggested that the educational institutions’ faculties should develop programmes together with business schools. Similarly, Bilén, Kisen- wether, Rzasa and Wise (2005) have suggested introducing more entrepreneurship programmes and/or competitions in order to introduce the topics of business formation, intellectual property, business finance and marketing to engineering students. Jamieson and Lohmann (2009) added that increasing the engineering knowledge base and learning through entrepreneurship would help engineering students to assess their learning in reference to entrepreneurship;

and, moreover, it would help students to critically evaluate and consciously develop skills that are needed to survive and be successful in their future careers.

It has also been emphasised that entrepreneurship education within engineering education should be seen as a way to enhance creativity and innovation, in addition to helping students to recognise opportunities over problems, and that this would ideally lead to identifying potential technology-oriented commercial opportunities (Byers et al., 2010).

The purpose of this dissertation was to acquire a thorough understanding of engineering students’ experiences of compulsory entrepreneurship education.

Thus, entrepreneurship education within engineering study programmes was

(13)

investigated from students’ perspectives. Based on the research findings, how teaching and learning practices can be improved is also discussed.

In Chapter 2, as follows, entrepreneurship education is described in more detail to share the ideas that have driven this research. Chapter 3 presents the origins of this study and its purpose, while Chapter 4 introduces the methodology that was used to conduct the research. In the Methodology chapter, a closer look is taken at the concept of phenomenographic research. A strong argument for using this approach is the current lack of phenomenographic research in Estonia. The results of the study are presented in Chapter 5, and in Chapter 6 those results will be discussed together with the contributions and limitations of the study.

(14)

2. ENTREPRENEURHIP EDUCATION:

WHAT AND HOW?

Establishing argumentation for the need to offer entrepreneurship education and/or ideally integrate it into engineering education calls for an explanation of what this actually means. There is neither unified understanding nor one right definition of what entrepreneurship education is, but many interpretations exist that vary depending on its purpose, extent and environment. For example, the UK Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education Report 2012 by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) as well as the Expert Group’s (EG) Final Report 2008 to the European Commission (EC) state that entre- preneurship education is about providing alternative career options, developing enterprise skills, instilling courage (for risk-taking), and developing the ability to act entrepreneurially based on learning about and experiencing enterprise.

Entrepreneurship education can be embedded in curricula or offered as an elective course, or it can be provided by career service providers, business incubators and other relevant entities. The Expert Group’s (EG) Final Report 2008 to the European Commission (EC) offers the following definition of entrepreneurship education:

“Entrepreneurship refers to individuals’ ability to turn ideas into action. It includes creativity, innovation and risk-taking, as well as the ability to plan and manage projects in order to achieve objectives. This supports everyone in day- to-day life at home and society, makes employees more aware of the context of their work and better able to seize opportunities, and provides a foundation for entrepreneurs establishing a social or commercial activity.” (European Com- mission, 2008, p. 10)

While the EU definition of entrepreneurship education is largely outcome- oriented, Gibb’s (2008) definition manages to also address the entrepreneurial learning process. He states that entrepreneurship/enterprise, in an educational context, is:

“Behaviours, skills and attributes applied individually and/or collectively to help individuals and organisations of all kinds to create, cope with and enjoy change and innovation involving higher levels of uncertainty and complexity as a means of achieving personal fulfilment and organisational effectiveness.

Enterprise education is the process by which these behaviours are practised and supported.” (Gibb, 2008, p. 106)

Thus, entrepreneurial learning is about developing the ability to manage unexpectedly occurring events and to create new and novel ideas in a freely chosen way: it is about freedom, not about a structured process (Jones, 2011).

Rae (2005) compliments this by stating that entrepreneurial learning means to

“recognise and act on opportunities, and interacting socially to initiate, organise and manage ventures” (p. 324). Thus, it is also not about acquiring and knowing all the right answers, sticking to “the way things have always been done” or reproducing facts, but rather about learning to function successfully “outside the

(15)

comfort zone” and becoming comfortable with this state of mind, and even being inspired by it. Pittaway and Cope (2007), Fayolle and Gailly (2008), and many others support this argument by elaborating that entrepreneurial learning is action-oriented, stimulating (creating and experimenting with ideas, and failing and learning from mistakes), highly emotional, and about overcoming challenges (solving problems). Rae (2003) also describes phases of the process of opportunity-centred entrepreneurial learning that are equally important:

1)identifying and exploring the opportunity; 2) relating the opportunity to personal goals; 3) planning to realise the opportunity; and 4) acting to make things happen (p. 545). In this context, developing an entrepreneurial mindset can be considered as the orientation toward entrepreneurial activities, where a person is able to deal with uncertainty, constant changes, and is seeking innovation (Rae, 2003). In sum, there seems to be a consensus that entrepreneurial learning should involve the identification of opportunities, creative problem solving, negotiation skills, strategic and critical thinking, networking, risk- managing, intuitive decision making, managing business situations holistically, coping with failure, being effective, and knowing your markets and clients, etc.

(Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Gibb, 2008; Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Pittaway &

Thorpe, 2012; Rae, 2003, 2005; etc.).

2.1. The theoretical basis of entrepreneurship education

Several learning theories are used in entrepreneurial learning within and outside the educational context, such as the action learning theory (e.g., Revans, 1981, 2011), experiential learning theory (e.g., Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2005), and socio-constructivist learning theory (e.g., Palincsar, 1998; Tynjälä, Pirhonen, Vartiainen, & Helle, 2009).

The action learning theory has been widely used in management training and its focus is on behavioural changes that occur in managers when they try to solve problems related to their organisation (Revans, 1981, 2011). Kayes (2002) states that the main aim of action learning is to improve the effectiveness of managerial behaviours in order to improve management and goal-directed outcomes. He adds that to discover and anticipate mistakes and effectively communicate information leads to achieving set goals. Originating from the field of adult action learning, this theory has been adjusted and also applied in educational settings, particularly in adult learning and training.

The experiential learning theory, in turn, focuses on learners acquiring and transforming through new experiences, and emphasises satisfaction, motivation and development (Heron, 1992; Kolb, 1984, etc.). Kayes (2002) presents an overview of the approach, explaining its origins and, in essence, stating that experiential learning (as well as management learning) helps managers to develop a more holistic view of themselves through new experiences, and is

(16)

characterised by treating the manager as a person (i.e., a better person will also be a better manager) rather than solely as an instrument for achieving goals.

Kolb’s (1984) well-known theory presents experiential learning as a cycle involving four concrete dimensions, namely, abstract conceptualisation, active experimentation, concrete experience, and reflective observation. Kayes (2002) sees the experiential learning theory as the integration of several epistemologies (Dewey’s pragmatism, Lewin’s social psychology, Piaget’s cognitive development, Roger’s client-centred therapy, Maslow’s humanism, and Perls’ Gestalt therapy) into a single framework. This has also been the source of some criticism directed toward the experiential learning theory. For example, Freed- man and Stumpf (1980) have raised questions about empirical evidence regarding Kolb’s preceding learning style theory, arguing that even though the theory is applied widely, its empirical evidence is based on “a single piece of unpublished research” and used an unreliable, biased instrument designed to support the theory (p. 446–447). Miettinen (2000) has questioned this problematic interpretation of the concept of experience and reflective thought (p.

70), arguing that if an experience is problematic then so might be reflecting on the experience. Miettinen (2000) also concerned himself with the process of

‘how’ in experiential learning, that is, how experience, perception, cognition and behaviour are combined in experiential learning theory.

The socio-constructivist learning theory draws on Piaget’s idea of socio- cognitive conflict on one hand, and on Vygotsky’s socio-cultural approach (Palincsar, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978) on the other. Common to different socio- constructivist approaches is that learning is considered to happen through social interaction, negotiation and collaboration, and learning processes are seen to be context-dependent, and they consider the heterogeneous nature of today’s learners (Palincsar, 1998; Tynjälä et al., 2009). Since the socio-constructive approach has been widely applied with rigour in educational settings, it offers a promising evidence-based framework and tools for its implementation as well as solid scientific proof.

Even though the highlighted theories use different conceptual frameworks and philosophical foundations, they all share common features and have similar pedagogical implications. For example, they emphasise metacognitive and self- regulative processes of learning. Similarly, they all focus on active learning by doing, on constant and creative problem solving and teamwork, and on interaction with the real world. They all aim to integrate theoretical and practical knowledge and to enhance critical thinking as well as promoting reflection in order to make learning explicit. Finally, they all see the teacher’s role differently from traditional learning theories. The teacher is seen as a co-learner, role model, tutor, and facilitator of learning rather than simply as a transmitter of knowledge (EC, 2008, 2011; Gibb, 2008; Kyrö, 2005; QAA, 2012; Tynjälä et al., 2009).

The basis for the specially developed entrepreneurship course examined here is the socio-constructivist learning theory. The rationale for choosing the socio-

(17)

constructivist learning theory as the basis is the extent to which it has been used in recent educational research and its reliability having been empirically proven.

The socio-constructivist learning theory is a dominant approach in educational research. The integrative pedagogy model that is used as a framework for teaching and learning was selected since it originates from the socio- constructivist learning theory. Furthermore, the integrative pedagogy model has been developed further through other studies of professional expertise (e.g., Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993, 2003; Boshuizen, 2009; Eraut, 2004; Ericsson, 2006; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993; Ericsson, Prietula, & Cokely, 2007). The main principle of integrative pedagogy is to integrate the basic elements of professional expertise, that is, theoretical/conceptual knowledge, practical/experiential skills and knowledge, self-regulation skills and socio- cultural knowledge, with each other. A detailed description of the modifications made to the integrative pedagogy model for the specially designed entrepreneurship course and a basic course description can be found in Article I, and an additional, broader course description is given in Article II. The strength of the integrative pedagogy model lies in its clear structure and its useful set of tools when it comes to applying socio-constructivist principles to the practice of teaching and learning. Moreover, its recent theoretical developments (Tynjälä, 2015) also consider the emotional dimension of learning, which has recently received increased attention in learning research (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014; Fiedler & Beier, 2014; Carver & Scheier, 2014; Graham & Taylor, 2014;

Pekrun & Perry, 2014; Linnenbrink-Garcia & Barger, 2014; Schultheiss &

Köllner, 2014; Skinner, Pitzer, & Brule, 2014; Brackett & Rivers, 2014; etc.).

Other aspects that are more explicitly exhibited in the new integrative pedagogy model when compared to its previous version (see also Article I) are the social context of learning and the cognitive dimension of learning. All of the considered levels – emotional, social, and cognitive – are closely interrelated/

interwined.

Integrative pedagogy is illustrated in more detail in Figure 1 and in Article I.

Detailed descriptions of problem-solving tasks and examples on how the entrepreneurship course was designed can be found in Article I.

In line with recent studies on emotions in learning (e.g., Pekrun & Linnen- brink-Garcia, 2014; Fiedler & Beier, 2014; Carver & Scheier, 2014; Graham &

Taylor, 2014; Pekrun & Perry, 2014; Linnenbrink-Garcia & Barger, 2014;

Schultheiss & Köllner, 2014; Skinner et al., 2014; Brackett & Rivers, 2014;

etc.), entrepreneurship education scholars have emphasised the presence of high levels of emotions in the entrepreneurial learning process (e.g., Cope, 2003, 2005; Gibb, 2002, 2010; Kyrö, 2005, 2008; Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Pittaway &

Thorpe, 2012; etc.). The role of emotions in entrepreneurial learning is seldom investigated. The same scholars have stated that it is crucial for the learner to reach the affective state that is necessary for developing self-efficacy (see Bandura, 1994), resilience (Shepherd, 2004) and effectuation of learning (see Sarasvathy, 2001). These points formed the rationale behind writing Article III.

(18)

Figure 1. Integrative pedagogy model (Modified from Tynjälä, 2015).

(19)

3. THE STARTING POINT AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 3.1. The starting point of the study

The current study was conducted in connection with an obligatory entrepreneurship course for engineering students at the TTK University of Applied Sciences in Estonia. It was specifically developed to suit engineering study programmes within higher education. The developed entrepreneurship course was the result of a larger development programme initiated by the Ministry of Economics and Communication and the Ministry of Education and Research in Estonia in cooperation with universities, and was funded by the Archimedes Foundation project Primus. The entrepreneurship course specifically aimed at improving curricula and teaching practices, with a special focus on enhancing entrepreneurial mindsets and entrepreneurial competencies. As a result, an entrepreneurship course suitable for integration into any engineering curriculum in modern higher education was developed.

The pilot study to investigate the newly developed entrepreneurship course for engineering students took place in the academic year 2009–2010. During the pilot, considerable changes in teaching practices were applied. It was soon noticed that changes in teaching practices led to changes in engineering students’ learning. The new dynamics and reactions were difficult to explain by teachers who experimented with applying the new pedagogical methods for the first time. As a result of the pilot, the course outcomes, such as company portfolios, presentations, memos and students’ feedback illustrated considerable improvements compared to the courses from previous years. However, the new learning dynamics that appeared in the classroom during the pilot left many questions about students’ learning experiences unanswered. On the one hand, it was evident that students’ reports on the projects had improved, but, on the other hand, how the learning actually took place and what kinds of different aspects of learning students discerned was not quite clear. Consequently, the decision to conduct additional research on the students’ perspectives on their entrepreneurial learning experience was born. This was important in order to assess whether the developments actually led students to a more powerful understanding of entrepreneurial issues. In order to make future improvements, it was necessary to understand how the learning took place and what kinds of learning can be discerned. After detailed planning, the new study introduced in this dissertation began. The research data were collected over a period of four months (September–December, 2010), examining the compulsory entrepreneurship course offered as part of a higher education programme in engineering.

During the dissertational study, two of the university teachers (including the author of this dissertation) that were involved in teaching the course had also been responsible for its earlier development (the preceding pilot). After the pilot, some changes were made to the course structure. In addition, the integrative

(20)

pedagogy model was introduced as a framework. During the both of the teachers kept research diaries and discussed their observations as frequently as needed (on a weekly basis, and sometimes more frequently). During the course, based on those teacher discussions and observations, some changes were made to the instructional strategy and reflection tools.

Since the pilot course in 2009–2010, teaching practices were changed by around 70%. Another aim of keeping research diaries was to be able to reflect on teachers’ feelings and understanding of the new dynamics that appeared in the classroom during the tutorials. Both of the teachers/ researchers were also responsible for conducting the group and individual interviews referred to in this study. The most difficult part of the study was to step out of the role of being the teacher and into that of the researcher, which is the reason why two additional researchers were involved in the analytic process later on.

3.2. The purpose of the study

The overall purpose on this study was to acquire a thorough understanding of engineering students’ experiences of compulsory entrepreneurship education.

The main research question was formulated as follows:

How do engineering students experience entrepreneurship education as a compulsory part of their education?

This overarching research question was studied from three different perspectives, explored through the following sub-questions:

1) How do engineering students experience studying entrepreneurship as part of their study programme?

2) What kinds of conceptions of entrepreneurial learning do engineering students express in the entrepreneurship course?

3) What are the sources of negative and positive emotions in entrepreneurship education?

4) What kinds of dynamic patterns of emotional aspects can be identified in the engineering students studying entrepreneurship?

(21)

4. METHODOLOGY

This chapter will firstly describe the three entrepreneurship courses that were the object of this study. Secondly, a short overview of the study’s research methods, phenomenography (Articles I and II) and thematic analysis (Article III) will be provided. In concluding the chapter, the data collection methods, interviewing principles and data analysis will be described.

4.1. Studied courses

The present study on entrepreneurship education was conducted regarding three different cultural contexts. In Articles I and II, an entrepreneurship course for engineering students in Estonia was examined, and in Article III Estonian data were combined with Finnish and Namibian entrepreneurship programme data to investigate emotional dimensions in entrepreneurial learning. Although all three courses were dealing with entrepreneurial learning and their aims were similar, the length of the courses and the background of the students differed con- siderably. The Estonian course applied socio-constructivist learning principles and integrative pedagogy as a basis, whereas both the Finnish and Namibian study programmes applied action learning principles (which are nevertheless in line with socio-constructivism and integrative pedagogy). The Estonian course was compulsory, but in Finland and Namibia the students applied for the programme on a voluntary basis. The Estonian course lasted 4 months, the Finnish one 2.5 years, and the Namibian one 2 years.

4.1.1. The Estonian entrepreneurship course

The Estonian course was designed according to the socio-constructivist view of learning and its pedagogical design was based on the integrative pedagogy model (Täks, Tynjälä, Toding, Kukemelk, & Venesaar, 2014; Tynjälä, 2008, Tynjälä

& Gijbels, 2012).

This entrepreneurship course took place on a weekly basis, and the students had specific tasks (problems to solve) for each week. The course started with student teams being requested to generate their own business ideas. After choosing their strongest idea, each team started to build on their idea by investigating and evaluating the relevant marketplace, investment possibilities, financial opportunities and so on, based on which to form an initial business plan.

All tasks presented to the teams were related to each other. For example, the task for each subsequent week departed from the task of each previous week. At the beginning of each week’s tutorial, the students had to present their solutions to the problems that had been reported at the end of previous week’s tutorial.

Teaching methods based on the principles of progressive problem solving (e.g.,

(22)

Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993, 2003; Pittaway & Thorpe, 2012), project learning (e.g., Tynjälä et al., 2009), and active experiential learning were applied. During each tutorial, the results of each group were discussed. Then, new challenges were introduced together with preparations for tackling these challenges, such as verbal guidance, book chapter references and so forth. Problem solving was used as a tool for learning, and reflection and feedback for allowing students to develop critical thinking and to raise self-awareness. In conjunction with the group tasks, some role plays as well as self-evaluation and personal development tasks, among others, were presented. For example, the students were asked to analyse their presentation and team skills. At the end of the course, the teams had to present the business portfolio of their hypothetical company and defend their business plan. Portfolios consisted of legal documents, job descriptions for the selected virtual job positions and responsibilities, self-evaluations, selec- tions of weekly tasks (e.g., market and consumer research results as well as business plans). In general, the process of the course itself followed the start-up process of the teams’ hypothetical companies.

The entrepreneurship course was worth 6 credit points. All of the graduates who participated in the course as part of their higher education would go on to acquire a higher engineering certificate with 240 credit points as a result of their four years of study.

4.1.2. The Finnish and Namibian entrepreneurship courses

The learning process in Finland and Namibia involved action learning principles and was supported by coaches. The students had to set up a virtual, sustainable corporate concept in teams and integrate their learning needs to support the team development. The Namibian entrepreneurship programme called Pro- learning was based on the model of the Finnish entrepreneurship programme called Proacademy, so the basic principles for learning in Finland and Namibia were similar.

In the Proacademy and Prolearning programmes, the team plays the central role in the pedagogical studies and the learning process. The action is based on working and learning together, where the latest theoretical knowledge is applied and new knowledge generated. In addition to real-world projects, the course studies consist of team meetings, small group workshops and coaching. The teams learn and projects grow through continuous feedback. In the weekly team sessions, the students learn by giving and getting both positive and negative feedback.

The Finnish students were enrolled in a 3.5-year Bachelor programme of which they spent 2.5 years in the Proacademy programme. The Namibian students were studying for a five-year Honours degree and spent the last two years of this time in the Prolearning programme.

Both in Finland and Namibia, students had to apply for the entrepreneurship programme and their selection was made based on individual interviews.

(23)

4.2. A general overview of phenomenography

Two of the three studies comprising this dissertation were conducted with a phenomenographic research approach. Phenomenography is empirical and pragmatic research that aims to examine qualitatively different ways in which people experience or understand something. Phenomenography has been developed within the educational research framework with a pedagogical orientation (Marton, 1981, 1986; Marton & Booth, 1997; Marton & Svensson, 1979;

Trigwell, 2006; etc.).

The word phenomenography is thought to have Greek etymological roots, deriving from the words phainonmenon (appearance) and graphein (description). Thus, the word phenomenography can be interpreted as ‘a description of appearances’ (Hasselgren & Beach, 1997). The most cited definition of phenomenography states that:

“Phenomenography is a research method adapted for mapping the qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualise, perceive and understand various aspects of, and phenomena in, the world around them.”

(Marton, 1986, p. 31)

When Marton first introduced phenomenography in 1981, he described it as being content-oriented and aiming at forming an experiential description of “the qualitatively different ways in which people perceive and understand their reality” (p. 177). An important characteristic of phenomenography is that it aims to describe, analyse and understand experiences from “people’s own perspective” (Marton, 1981). In other words, people’s experiences or conceptions of different phenomena of the world are the focus of study. In order to highlight the philosophical and methodological fundamentals of phenomenography in more detail, the aspects typical to phenomenography are presented in Table 1.

In sum, there are five main characteristics of phenomenography: its 1) non-dualist and 2) qualitative nature, 3) second-order perspective, 4) focus on the key aspects of variation, and 5) outcome in the form of internally related categories.

The research orientation described above is sometimes also referred as

“pure” phenomenography. More recently, Bowden (2000) has introduced a phenomenographic orientation that is called “developmental” phenomenography, which aims to seek out “how people experience some aspects of their world and enable them or others to change the way their world operates” (p. 3). The difference between these two approaches, pure and developmental, lies in how the findings are used. While pure phenomenography describes the variation in individuals’ understandings or experiences, the main aim of developmental phenomenography is to provide findings that can later be used in teaching and learning (Bowden, 2000). The phenomenographic research that has been conducted in connection with this dissertation has aimed to take the developmental approach and to provide findings that can be used as an input to improve learning experiences and teaching practices, and to contribute to curricular developments in engineering education and to entrepreneurial learning.

(24)

Table 1. Philosophy, Method and Outcome of Phenomenography. (Compiled based on:

Åkerlind, 2005a, 2012; Bowden, 2000; Collier-Reed & Ingerman, 2013; Marton, 1981, 1986, 1995; Marton & Booth, 1997; Tan, 2009; Trigwell, 2006, etc.)

Philo-

sophy 1) Non-dualist Phenomenography is a non-dualist approach, where experience and understanding are seen as the relationship between the individual and the phenomenon (Marton, 1981, 1986, 1995; Trigwell, 2006). A non-dualist philosophy sees individuals and phenomena as being inseparable (Tan, 2009)

Method 2) Qualitative Phenomenography is a philosophically and

methodologically qualitative research method, seeking qualitative differences in individuals’ experiences and understanding (Trigwell, 2006). In-depth interviews are the most common form of data used in

phenomenographic studies, and samples are selected to maximise the possible variations (Åkerlind, 2005a, 2012;

Bowden, 2000; Marton, 1986; Marton & Booth, 1997) 3) Second-

order perspective

Phenomenography adopts a second-order perspective. In a second-order perspective, the researcher makes statements about individuals’ experiences and ideas regarding the world rather than about the phenomenon itself (Marton, 1981, 1986, 1995; Tan, 2009; Trigwell, 2006)

4) Focus on key aspects of variation

The focus is on key aspects of the variation in experience (Marton, Booth, 1997; Trigwell, 2006). The aim is to find out how individuals’ experiences or conceptions vary and what the aspects that differentiate different experiences or conceptions are.

Outcome 5) Internally related categories

Limited number of hierarchical, qualitatively different and internally related categories form the “outcome space” representing different ways of experiencing a phenomenon (Åkerlind, 2012; Collier-Reed & Ingerman, 2013; Marton, 1981, 1986; Marton & Booth, 1997)

4.2.1. The object of phenomenographic study

In phenomenography, the focus of research is not the phenomenon per se, but rather the relation between the subject and the phenomenon, that is, how the student, teacher or other type of individual understands the phenomenon (Åkerlind, 2005a, 2012; Barnard, McCosker, & Gerber, 1999; Bowden, 2005;

Collier-Reed & Ingerman, 2013; Marton, 1981, 1986, 1995; Marton & Booth, 1997; Svensson, 1997, etc.). This is illustrated in Figure 2. For example, in Article I of this dissertation, the object of the study was engineering students’

(the subjects) experiences of studying entrepreneurship (the phenomenon) as part of their study programme (the context); and in Article II, it was engineering

(25)

students’ (the subjects) conceptions of entrepreneurial learning (the phenomenon) as part of their education (the context).

Figure 2. Focus of phenomenographic research (based on Bowden, 2005, Figure 1.1, p. 13).

Figure 3. Focus of phenomenographic research (based on Bowden, 2005, Figure 1.1, p. 13) modified in light of the current study.

(26)

It should be noted that although the phenomena “studying” and “learning” can be conceptually differentiated, they are nonetheless closely related to each other – so much so that they are often used as synonyms. Studying is an activity that intends to bring about learning, both in the form of learning processes and outcomes. Learning, in turn, is a process and an activity that aims to bring about changes in thinking or actions and thus in the outcomes of actions. For example, Zimmermann (2002) states that learning is seen as an activity that students proactively undertake for themselves rather than as a hidden event that happens to them in reaction to teaching (p. 65). In addition, the concepts of experiencing and understanding should not be seen as synonyms, although both expressions relate, to a certain extent, to what people have in their minds (Marton & Pong, 2005). For example, experiencing can be seen manifested in a person’s immediate expression of feelings and emotions, whereas understanding can be manifested as conceptualising other people’s feelings, emotions or experiences, or something that is not directly experienced by a person.

Studying engineering students’ experiences and conceptions of entrepreneurship education helps to understand what should be done in order to enable students to move toward gaining a deeper understanding of entrepreneurial learning and to apply teaching practices accordingly.

4.2.2. Outcomes of phenomenographic studies

The results of phenomenographic studies are presented in the form of “categories of description” (Marton, 1981, 1986; Marton & Booth, 1997). The de- scriptive categories characterise similarities and differences in meaning and reflect the qualitatively different ways in which phenomena can be described, analysed, understood and experienced (Åkerlind, 2005a, 2012; Barnard et al., 1999; Collier-Reed & Ingerman, 2013; Marton, 1981, 1986; Marton & Booth, 1997; Marton, Dall’Alba, & Beaty, 1993; Svensson, 1984, 1997; Rovio- Johansson, 2013; etc.). Marton and Booth (1997, p. 125) have suggested the following three criteria for assessing the quality of these types of categories:

1) The individual categories should each stand in clear relation to the phenomenon under investigation, telling something distinct about a particular way of experiencing the phenomenon.

2) The categories have to stand in a logical relationship with one another; in a relationship that is frequently hierarchical.

3) The system should be meaningful – as few categories as possible should be demonstrated to reasonably capture the critical variation in the data.

The collection of structured categories is called the “outcome space” (Åkerlind, 2005a, 2012; Collier-Reed & Ingerman, 2013; Marton, 1981, 1986; Marton &

Booth, 1997, etc.). In order to arrive at the outcome space, the researchers have to look for common themes in the meanings expressed by students. Phe- nomenographic studies also often identify what are called dimensions of

(27)

variation. These dimensions are those aspects that vary between the categories.

Identifying these dimensions is essential for developing categories that will describe the different and meaningful ways in which a group of students conceptualise a phenomenon (Trigwell, 2006). The categories and the dimensions of variation that are the outcome of this dissertation are presented in Articles I and II, in Table 2 and 3 accordingly, and in the Results chapter of this report.

4.2.3. Misconceptions and misinterpretations in phenomenographic research

There have been a number of misconceptions and misinterpretations regarding the orientation of phenomenographic research throughout its development.

Thus, the following list of aspects should be considered when undertaking phenomenographic research:

1) Phenomenography was not developed on the basis of phenomenological philosophy and is not completely part of the phenomenological tradition (Marton & Booth, 1997; Svensson, 1997).

2) Objective reality is not presumed nor investigated in phenomenography (Marton, 1995).

3) Phenomenography is not a content analysis: The outcome is not a list of categories referring to different entities (Marton, 1995).

4) Phenomenography does not focus on the behaviours of different acts in the way that psychology does, but rather on “ways of experiencing” (e.g., learning, remembering, thinking, solving problems, and so on. (Marton &

Booth, 1997, p. 114–116).

5) Personality type is not an object of research in phenomenography (Marton, 1995).

6) Phenomenography is not about discovering different things, but about different ways of seeing the same thing (Marton, 1995).

7) Phenomenography does not aim “to describe the knowledge quantitatively, like in most knowledge tests, where the results are given in the form of points or grades […] but in terms of the individual’s understanding of something in terms of meaning that this something has to the individual, irrespective of the status of the experienced meaning in relation to demands for objectivity and inter-subjectivity” (Svensson, 1997, p.163–164).

8) The categories of description in phenomenography are forms of expressing conceptions, not the general characterisations of conceptions (Svensson, 1997).

All in all, phenomenography is simply an attempt to capture critical differences in how people experience the world and how they learn to experience the world (Marton, 1995, p. 180).

(28)

4.3. General overview of thematic analysis

Article III of this dissertation used thematic analysis as the main research method. Thematic analysis is recognised as an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analysing qualitative data in a way that captures the important concepts within a data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Thematic analysis is a qualitative type of analysis, the idea of which is to identify important themes from the descriptions of a data set. These descriptions are closely related to the investigated phenomenon and highlight experiences, meanings and the perceived reality of the participants (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

The process for identifying themes is iterative and involves reading and rereading transcripts many times, until certain patterns within the data are recognised. At a later stage of the thematic analysis, these identified patterns are then organised into categories. Thematic analysis, being a flexible and useful research tool, offers theoretical freedom that can potentially provide a rich and detailed account of qualitative data and can be used within many different types of theoretical frameworks (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Holloway & Todres, 2003), not only as part of a specific method (Boyatzis, 1998). This makes thematic analysis an important and useful tool for every researcher. Although this approach is widely used, there is an ongoing debate about how it should be undertaken (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2006). That is why it is critical that the process of the thematic analysis is explicitly presented (Attride-Stirling, 2001). For example, reporting on the assumptions taken in the analysis, how the process of analysis is organised, and how the coding process is conducted.

Thematic analysis can involve both the data-driven inductive approach (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2006) and the deductive approach (Braun &

Clarke 2006), or a combination of these (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The inductive approach was applied in the study reported in Article III, since the themes that resulted from that study were explorative and emerged from the data; that is, the themes were not defined before the interviews.

The importance of the themes relates to: 1) how often they appear; 2) how extensively they appear in regard to the ideas and practices; 3) how people react when the theme is dishonoured; and 4) the extent to which the number, force and variety of a theme’s manifestation is controlled by a specific context (Ryan

& Bernard, 2003).

The coding process of the themes plays a crucial role in the analysis process and involves noticing important moments and coding them (Boyatzis, 1998). As has been pointed out, “a ‘good code’ is one that captures the qualitative richness of the phenomenon” (Boyatzis, 1998, p. 1).

This may be the rationale behind thematic analysis being used in a large number of studies. All in all, this methodological approach makes it possible to analyse rich and detailed qualitative data that can then be used within different theoretical frameworks (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

(29)

4.4. Data collection 4.4.1. Interviewing

The main data collection method in phenomenography and in thematic analysis is interviewing, and it was also applied in this study. The main aim of an interview is to explore the interviewee’s experience of a phenomenon in depth.

It has been suggested by several researchers that the interview questions for phenomenographic interviews should be as open as possible (Åkerlind, 2005b;

Bowden, 2000; Kvale, 2007; Marton, 1986). This is important because the interviewer seeks to acquire descriptions of the interviewees’ life and the meaning they attribute to certain phenomena (Kvale, 2007). Moreover, it is quite important what questions are asked and how they are asked (Åkerlind, 2005b; Marton, 1986). Furthermore, unstructured follow-up questions can be used to elaborate on a topic or check the meaning that interviewees associate with key words that they use. The aim is to provide opportunities for the interviewees to describe their current understanding of the phenomenon in question as fully as possible (Åkerlind, 2003, 2005b, 2005c).

During the Estonian study (Article I and II), the interview guidelines for the data collection phases were prepared beforehand and discussed in detail between the researchers in order to ensure consistency and smooth flow as well as appropriate depth concerning the interviews, which is necessary in phenomenographic research (Åkerlind, 2005a, 2012; Bowden, 2000). The interviews began with activating and open questions, with the students being asked to explain how they felt about entrepreneurial learning as part of their engineering studies and what they considered to be the main learning points. In addition, among other points, they were asked to describe the issues handled during the learning sessions and to compare the course with other courses in their study programme. When clarification was needed, additional questions were asked, such as, “Could you explain that further?” or, “Could you give an example?” – always keeping in mind the purpose of the study and phenomenon in question. The interview guide is described in more detail in Article I and Appendix A (Täks et al., 2014).

The interviews that were conducted in Finland and Namibia (Article III) were also semi-structured, in-depth individual interviews. The interview guidelines were prepared beforehand and the main questions asked in the interviews remained the same across all three interviews, that is, at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the programme. Depending on the progress and time scale, some questions were added at the second and third interview stage. The comparison of the Estonian study and Namibia and Finnish study is given in Appendix 1. The selection of the questions mentioned in this concluding dissertation is based on the similarities between the interview guidelines for the three countries, so not all of the questions addressed during the interviews are presented here.

(30)

4.3.2. The sample and data collection in Estonia

The Estonian participants (n = 48) were full-time, fourth-year engineering students from three different disciplines (automotive engineering, technical design, textile and resource management), and the average age of the participants at the time of the research was 24 years and 6 months. The majority of the participants joined the engineering study programme either after graduating from upper secondary school or after a few years of work experience. All of the participating students went on to acquire a higher engineering certificate with 240 credit points as a result of their four years of study. The entrepreneurship course was a compulsory part of their curriculum. The Estonian data were collected in two phases: firstly, group interviews were conducted shortly after the course, and, secondly, individual interviews were held two to three months after the course. More detailed overview of the Estonian sample can be found in Table 3.

Table 2. Overview of the Samples of the Semi-Structured Group Interviews and the Individual In-Depth Interviews (Articles 1 and 2).

Sample of group interviews

(n = 48, average age 24.6 years) Sample of individual in-depth interviews (n = 16, average age 24.8 years) Automotive

Engineering, 2 groups (n = 34)

Resource Management in the field of Clothing and Textiles, 1 group, and Technical Design together with Technology of Apparel, 1 group*;

both groups (n = 14)

Automotive Engineering (n = 10)

Resource

Management in the field of Clothing and Textiles (n = 6)

Male = 33 Female = 14 Male = 9 Female = 6

Female = 1 Female = 1

* The students of Technical Design and those of Technology of Apparel were not able to participate in individual interviews due to their internships at companies.

The Technical Design Curriculum is designed to develop knowledge and skills that enable learners to create and develop clothing designs by using the latest technological equipment and programmes. This specialisation requires the ability to handle production processes, production design, and management.

The Textile and Resource Management Curriculum is more focused on topics that relate to production processes. In this specialisation, it is important to understand and handle purchasing and sales processes that support production.

These two aforementioned groups were joined into one large group for the entrepreneurship course. The Automotive Engineering Curriculum is designed to provide specific knowledge and skills for working in the changing technological environment of the automotive industry, with the possibility to specialise either in traffic control and maintenance or as a specialist car repair mechanic.

(31)

Due to the large numbers of students in the automotive engineering programme and its arrangement of time schedules, it was not possible to combine all student teams into one large group.

In considering the number of students, the suggested length of the interviews, and the resource-intense processes of phenomenographic research, it was decided to use group interviews for the study. The group interviews were video recorded and involved 48 (89%) of the total of 54 students. Six students were not able to participate due to illness or work responsibilities. Four group interviews (n = 48) were conducted separately with each group (17, 17, 6, and 8, respectively) on different days, each time immediately following the teaching session of the course. The group interviews were video recorded and each one lasted approximately 90–120 minutes. After conducting the group interviews, it became clear that the descriptions of the experiences that students shared during the interviews were incomplete; this was thought to have been due to the large number of students in each group. As a consequence, it was decided to conduct additional, individual in-depth interviews with selected students (n = 16) approximately two to three months after the course. The individual interviews lasted 40 minutes each, on average. The students’ permission for both recordings was requested before the interviews. The rationale for selecting interviewees was to ensure that the maximum variation in students’ experiences of the phenomenon in question would be represented. To capture the largest variation possible, the selection was based on students’ self-assessments and their final grades in the course (to make sure that the sample included students with different achievement goals and levels). Therefore, both high and low achievers were invited. Self-assessment was mainly based on self-monitoring scales that students had to fill out twice, that is, at the beginning and at the end of the course. Those students whose self-monitoring scales illustrated the largest and the smallest changes in personal awareness among engineering students were selected to participate in the study. All of the individual interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and these transcripts were the focus of the analysis.

4.3.3. The samples and data collections in Finland and Namibia

In Finland and in Namibia, the data were collected in conjunction with: 1) the Proacademy programme of Applied Sciences in Tampere, Finland; and 2) the Prolearning programme in Windhoek, Namibia. In Finland, six male and twelve female students (N = 18), aged 22 to 26 years, and in Namibia, seven male and six female students (N = 13), aged 22 to 24 years, participated in this longitudinal study.

In Finland (N = 18) and Namibia (N = 13), the data were longitudinally gathered through three individual in-depth interviews: one at the beginning, one in the middle, and one at the end of the programme. In Namibia, an additional, fourth interview was held (n = 10) almost one year after the end of the

(32)

programme. The average length of the interviews was approximately 60 minutes, in both Finland and Namibia. Both the Finnish and Namibian interviews were conducted by the same researcher. All of the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

4.5. Data analysis

4.5.1. Phenomenographic data analysis (Articles I and II)

In phenomenographic data analysis, the variation in the interpretation of the phenomenon being examined is the object of research. Therefore, the researcher is looking for qualitatively different ways in which different participants have experienced the phenomenon in question (e.g., entrepreneurial learning). The analysis of the interviews is iterative, that is, the researcher repeatedly reads through transcripts searching for meanings, and compares and contrasts the data for similarities and differences as well as looking for key relationships between themes (Åkerlind, 2003). This process should lead to a set of stable categories of description, that is, to an outcome space.

In line with Bowden’s (2000) advice, the data analysis in this study started only once both the group and individual interviews had been completed and transcribed. At the beginning of the analysis, all of the data were combined;

subsequently, these two sets (group and individual interview transcripts) of data were analysed as a whole. The analysis proceeded with the dissertation author being responsible for the data analysis, consulting (almost daily) the other researcher(s) as part of the process. The responsible researcher read and reread the transcripts several times and made initial allocations in each transcript to form draft categories. Next, the second researcher went through the same process, but in isolation from the responsible researcher. After both researchers completed the task, the initial results were compared and discussed. Points of disagreement were contrasted against the transcripts and discussed with the third researcher until the final descriptions that best reflected the students’

qualitatively different ways of understanding the phenomenon in question were compiled. Thus, categories and their structural relationships were defined collaboratively by the researchers.

Simultaneous horizontal analysis allowed identifying the dimensions of variation, that is, the aspects that vary between the categories. The horizontal analysis followed the same procedures as the identification of the categories.

Thus, the identification of the categories and the horizontal analysis of the dimensions of variation overlapped. The categories and dimensions of variation were arranged and rearranged until they formed the final categories and dimensions (Åkerlind, 2005a, 2012; Marton & Booth, 1997). The process of analysing the data lasted approximately seven months in total. The aim was to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings.

MARGE TÄKS Engineering students’ experiences of entrepreneurship education

MARGE TÄKS

Engineering students’ experiences of entrepreneurship education

A qualitative approach

MARGE TÄKS

Engineering students’ experiences of entrepreneurship education

A qualitative approach

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The latest developments and challenges in engineering education

1.2. Entrepreneurship education in technical and engineering studies

2. ENTREPRENEURHIP EDUCATION:

WHAT AND HOW?

2.1. The theoretical basis of entrepreneurship education

3. THE STARTING POINT AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 3.1. The starting point of the study

3.2. The purpose of the study

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. Studied courses

4.1.1. The Estonian entrepreneurship course

4.1.2. The Finnish and Namibian entrepreneurship courses

4.2. A general overview of phenomenography

4.2.1. The object of phenomenographic study

4.2.2. Outcomes of phenomenographic studies

4.2.3. Misconceptions and misinterpretations in phenomenographic research

4.3. General overview of thematic analysis

4.4. Data collection 4.4.1. Interviewing

4.3.2. The sample and data collection in Estonia

4.3.3. The samples and data collections in Finland and Namibia

4.5. Data analysis

4.5.1. Phenomenographic data analysis (Articles I and II)